Loading Nautique 211

We have a Nautique 211 and we love it. I believe it is the best crossover / family watersports boat on the market. However, we are getting more serious about wakeboarding and are considering a more pure wakeboarding boat.

We have been riding behind our 05 211 for 2 and 1/2 years and believe we have the wake pretty maxed out. We use factory ballast plus about 1,400 lbs sacks. We run about 22.5 mph using a 75 foot rope. We have found that adding more weight does not seem to do much, we can't go faster without losing the wake and the wake loses its kick beyond 75 feet. My kids are after me to trade-in for a 230, X-Star or VLX.

Anybody think I can get anything more out of my 211 or should I trade-in for a more pure wakeboarding boat.

the 211 (like any other nautiue) is pretty weight sensitive. the mc's will have a bigger wake at the cost of A LOT of extra weight and gas and the bu wake is pretty good (a favorite of mine) but neither will have the "kick" that the 211 has.

i was just out with some pretty good riders and they were riding at 24 mph. the wake was pretty good imo and theirs ( i surf and i love my 211 surf wake).

here is my wakeboarding setup with factory ballast and pop products steel shot bags (they really firm up the wake vs water ballast imo)

- rear tanks full
- belly at 1/2 full
- 4 bags per locker next to the engine compartment in the back
- 2 bags under the bow cushions per side pushed pack
- 4 bags in the front of the cabin to move around

it helps to keep the boat tail heavy and use the hydrogate to get it out out of the hole. more weight in the belly tank flattens out the wake- less weight makes it steeper (go figure ?)

the only reason i would ever trade my 211 in is for a bigger boat (ie 220).

(Message edited by clubmyke on April 07, 2008)

I can vouch for the kick of the 211 wake. Buddy of mine had a 211 last summer. Another buddy of mine has a 06 wakesetter.

You will definatly not have near the kick/steepness of the 211 wake with a wakesetter.

I didn't care for the 211.
Reasons being
1. Seating was really broken up. reminscent of an inboard seating arrangement
2. Wake was very poppy and abrupt. Not the biggest wake either. Didn't seem very forgiving to me.

I like the wakesetter wake much better cause its not as vert feeling to me wake wise. All in all i like the wakeboarding boat, malibu, much better. Seating and wake where much better in my opinion.

I would absolutly love to own either one of these boats but prefer the malibu better.

(Message edited by gjacko77 on April 07, 2008)

Clubmyke and a few others around here know the secret. The 211 has a GREAT wake when weighted correctly. Because of the narrow beam and short length it is picky on where the weight is. I basically doubled the best stock setup.

Stock;
belly - 1/2 full
rear - full

extra setup;
nose - 150Lbs in lead
belly - full
rear stock - full
Added rear - 250lb sacs tapped into rear tanks

Also, think of adding the 1234/1235 prop if you're adding weight. That prop is great for getting out of the hole, no messing with the hydrogate. We usually ride 4/5 people. With that and the ballast full, it's nothing to get going.

The wake will be between the old 210 and a VLX with alot of mass in the wake. Not as steep as the old 210 (althoug you could get it close) and less trough, but steeper than a VLX with a little more trough.

Keep it!

If you want a pure wake boat (an athelete's boat/not a family boat), that kicks a massive wake with less basllast than most, go with a pre 2007 Nautique 210 team.

Thanks to all for the replies. My extra 1400 is distributed 600lbs in the bow, 800lbs in the back. Sounds others are running more in the back and less in the front. I will try that next time we go out.

Anybody have trouble with porposing with that much weight in the back?

Clubmyke - how much do the pop products steel shot bags weigh?

Dave (noti dad) - I am running a four blade 13.5 x 16 x 1 1/8 prop. I am not familiar with 1234/1235 prop. I get out of the hole decently now, but I could see myself struggling a bit with more in the back and less in the front.

the 211 doesnt take that much weight to get it going since the boat is quite heavy to begin with (3800lbs) i think you are running a little to much weight imo.

its a really fine line between porpoising and hole shot and that is where the wake is at its best. too much weight up front flattens out the wake. i would just run less weight ( i have tried more and it makes it worse imo.. like anything ymmv)

the pop products bags weigh 40lbs each and do wonders to clean up the wake and firm it up.

btw, the acme 1234 prop is awesome...

Hey Mike: When your 211 is weighted like it in your your profile does your 211 take in water threw the rub rail or side vent?

i have everything sealed up on the starboard side vent and have tightened down the rubrail all the way around. both of the airvents are on the port side (my boat is pretty much set up for goofy surfing)

if any water makes it in then there are 2- 1100 bilge pumps to pick it up.



(Message edited by clubmyke on April 07, 2008)

You're probably running this one;
536/537 - dia. 13.50, pitch 16.00, .105 cup

1234/1235 - dia. 14.50, pitch 14.25, .105 cup
It looks like a prop from a tug boat compared to the stock one you've got on now.

IMHO, you're running too much total weight. In my experience the wake size barely increases in size/height and steepness with more weight, but will gain mass (wake becomes more solid). Too much in the back and you will porpose. You will know when it's too much.

Seems like the message is less total weight with more in the back and a bigger prop with less pitch. Thanks, I will give it a try.

Is the benefit of the prop mainly getting out of the hole better or is it also better fuel economy? Is there a negative to a bigger/less pitch prop other than giving up some top end?

What does ymmv mean?

your mileage may vary

depends. I found less mileage when skiing or cruising (not much), but get alot better when weighted and riding. JMO. But that all makes sense as I wouldn't use a top end prop setup for slow speeds or a low end prop for high speeds. High RPMS to spin for a long period will eat more gas.

We don't ski alot and I top out at 34mph 22 off so it's not turning ridiculous RPMs like it would if I still barefooted.

I went to the prop for the holeshot when weighted.

Not much more to be said about loading except that you need to take your passenger load into account. I typically ride with a crew of 6 so stock rears full, two pop bags toward the rear (more like 6 if you count the weight of my golf cart batteries), and belly 3/4 full. I have the passengers sit towards the back, if any are up front I dump some of the belly.

As all others have said, this hull is very weight sensitive.

Early on I was running an extra 300-400lbs of lead here and there. I eventually ended up taking all but a couple bags out. I just use the bags to balance the boat side to side or load one side for surfing.

(Message edited by mikeski on April 08, 2008)

John, the 211 is a great boat and allows you to really tweak out your wake to the rider's liking.

It would be interesting to know how old and how good your kids are. I always am amazed when I watch old wakeboard videos and I see how the pros in those days would do amazing moves with nothing more that a weighed down ski boat with a pylon extension. Just for kicks, look up Shapiro doing his stuff on an old Skurfer. I was amazed.

My point is: you'll get a lot more air with proper technique than with a bigger wake.

Again, I don't know how advanced your children are, but if it were mine, the first thing I would offer them is a week at a wakeboard camp rather than a new boat.

Unless it is you who craves a new boat. Then that's a different story...

Best of luck!

Santa - Thanks for asking. You make a great point and I believe you are absolutely correct. I am a 48 year old novice so I really do not know, but learning correct technique on a smaller wake makes sense to me. I am probably going to give you more information than you want, but you asked so here goes :-) .

My older boy turned 14 in Feb. He still qualifies for the boys division since he was only 13 as of Jan 1. He is the one who is really craving a new boat.

He is doing basic inverts, 3s and 5s. He can do all his inverts, 3's and Toe 5 behind our boat. He has never landed his Heel 5 behind our boat, although he is close and I think he will with a few more tries. He has landed his heel 5 behind a 230, X-Star and Tige 24 including once in competition behind a 230, but he has just learned that trick within the last few weeks and is not yet consistent.

I am just wake jumps and 180's. My younger boy is 12 and is just learning his first invert. At this point my younger boy is not as serious as my older boy although he enjoys the bigger wakes, but obviously what we have is fine for what he are doing and it makes no difference to me. However, I competed behind a 230 in the Veterans division this past weekend and enjoyed it (for me they should call that division "old beginner" rather than veterans... lol.. )

My older boy plans to begin working on mobes and railies this year. He hopes to compete in junior men next year, but he got into the sport later than a lot of kids he is competing with and he has some catching up to do. Many of his competitors are already doing mobes and railies. The top three boys all landed 7's in the finals of the boys division of worlds last year.

He also rides 24 to 25 mph at 80 feet behind other boats (75 feet behind X-Star). However, we find our wake flattens above 22.5 and the wake loses its kick beyond 75 feet.

Both my boys have done a wakeboard camp at The Projects and regularly train with professional coaches here in Orlando.

We are also making friends with pros and good amateur riders and would like to have a boat they would like to come ride behind.

So anyway, our thought on the new boat is mainly to give my older boy something to help him get to the next level and give us the chance to ride with some better riders. In addition, my younger boy and I will have fun and we will have more room to pile on the friends.

You make a good point. Sounds like you have been around for a while. I will be interested to hear your thought.

You sure don't need my permission to buy that new boat! But it does look to me like your family is ready to move on to something more advanced. WOuld be sad to see you leave the Nautique family, so be sure your boy tries the 220 or the 210 before.

For the rest, I'm in the same boat as you are(litterally!). I also have a 211. I will turn 40 this year. A buddy and I are thinking of starting to compete in the "oldies" circle too this year.

john,

something is really amiss is you cant ride past 22.5 mph on you 211...

I donno what you're looking to spend but I came across a nwq 07 (i dont think it was 08) Nautique 230... loaded, everything but a bimini... 63k.

For how much boat is there its not a bad price at all.

clubmyke - Thanks for your continued feedback. I get the wake reports from my kids. 22 is a good speed for me and I am not good enough to tell much difference in the wake anyway.

I have not had our boat out since I got the advice through this thread. Perhaps I have too much weight up front. I am going to try less weight with more in the back as suggested. Maybe that will work better. I will post the results of my experiments.

Santa - I have been very pleased with the performance of my '05 211 and I am looking at Nautiques as well, mainly the 230. Nautiques appeal to me for many reasons, but the X-Star and VLX have their pluses as well.

Nick - Where did you see the '07 230 for 63K? That sounds like a deal I should check into.

Its Fortfremont Marine... thats Wisconsin though, i donno where you're at. I looked at it the other day, and its nice.

I think this is the one, but it says its an 08. I was wrong. worth giving them a call if you're near
http://www.fortfremont.com/new_vehicle_detail.asp?sid=02880976X4K13K2008J3I18 I36JPMQ1986R0&veh=59674&pov=694020

(Message edited by sidekicknicholas on April 13, 2008)

Make sure you take it for a good test ride, along with your older son. There's not much info out there about the 230's wake characteristics, whereas the new 220 is a sure bet. I think I even read that the 230's wake was not as hard-core as the 220's, as it is more geared towards a family all-around cruiser market(but please don't quote me on that).

Check out PlanetNautique.com and you'll certainly find more user reviews and opinions.

And especially, keep us posted.

agree, more in back and center of the boat. rode one last weekend that was very nice. just tweak it a bit.

john,

this is a great thread...the nautiques are pretty tweaky when it comes to weight placement. btw, the older 210 wake is super sensitive to get it dialed in (literally 3-4 inches of where a person sites had a profound effect on the wake)

i would check into the pop products steel shot bags (at least 10-15 of them) on your 211. it really firms up the wake and allows you to dial it in.. not to mention, you cab use them on any boat. you can take this a holy crap, i cant believe the difference reccomendation.

i dont want to get into a debate of water ballast vs steel shots bags but i have tried both and still rely on my pop products to dial in my surf wake and wakeboard wake (i been pullin alot of wakeboarders and it has similar kick to the older 210 wake )

Couldn't agree with clubmyke more, the Pop Products are great! I removed my stock rear ballast tanks and replaced them with Pop Products. This allows me to easily access the engine for maintenance and cleaning, which was a total Biatch when the stock tanks were installed! One of my biggest gripes with the 211 was access to the motor, but now that is not a problem, and I am a happy camper. I really love my 211, it is a great boat that throws a wake which is more than enough for 90%+ of the wakeworlders out there. I have seen some sick tricks landed behind my boat, so I know that the wake is not an issue. Every now and then I think I want another boat, but when I edge in for a new trick and wuss out, I realize that the biggest obstacle to progressing is me, not the wake! If you have the skills and the mental ability to push the envelope, the 211 will not prevent you form landing that next trick, IMHO.

dabigkahuna,

How in the heck did you remove the port side ballast tank ?

I looked at the Pop Products website and I am definitely going to order some. Sounds like an awesome product.

I have an 85 pound cube sac I move around the boat for tweaking, but it is awkward. I lot of riders use lead around here (Orlando), but it is hard to find.

I trailer my boat - any thoughts on issues of leaving weight in the boat for trailering?

I have a tandem axle trailer and pull with a Suburban so I imagine I can get away with leaving a few hundred pounds in the boat.

If I use pop products up front and water ballast in the back, I wonder if I will alter the weight distribution on the trailer too much if I dump the water ballast and leave the pop products in the boat.

Thoughts?

Been there done that! It is not the boat. http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/420793.html?1173225182

john,

i leave a couple hundred pounds in the boat (center floor on top a towel ) and the rest in the truck.

the best combination i have come across on my 211.

- rear tanks full
- belly at 1/2 full
- 4 bags per locker next to the engine compartment in the back
- 3 bags under the bow cushions per side pushed pack
- 4 bags in the boat to move around

its not a lot of extra weight, but the wake is big, clean, and lots of kick.

Clubmyke,

The port was a bit challenging, as the walk-through transom makes the space very small. I first removed the engine firewall boards that are installed (3 total), the I removed the battery and the battery box. Then, I disconnected all the plumbing for the ballast pumps, I removed the ballast pump itself (have to flip the tank partially over), and I disconnected the tank water level gauge connector. After that, it was all about patience and finesse! Not too bad actually, now that I have done it once I could do it in under an hour I'm sure. Re-Installing the tank would be about the same amount of time.

You will be amazed at how easy it is to work on the engine after that tank is removed, night and day difference. I had to replace my starter twice with the ballast tank installed, and I thought I was going to go mental trying to work in that tiny space all contorted. After I removed the ballast tank, I removed the starter and reinstalled it, primarily just to inspect what was going on down there, as I couldn't see much when the tank was installed. It was a piece of cake, all the room you would ever need.

A little extra poundage in the rear increases the steepness of the wake for sure...
Before extra bags:

After extra bags:

thanks for the comeback... i would like to get some flyhigh fatsacs instead of the rear tanks... make mores sense imo

Yup, custpm sacks plumbed into the stock ballast pump system would be the best option for sure, it would give you the best of both worlds. If you end up getting sacks for the rear, let me know how it goes, as I want to do this option as well.

Aloha!

im really tempted to do it... i dont like to mess with the extra ballast on the starboard side when i wakesurf..

the only drawback is i lose the ballast gauges since i wouldnt fill the the 575 lbs sacs all the way when the boat is set up for wakeboarding.

Well, you can always time how long it takes to fill a ballast bag and you could get a pretty accurate gallons/minute rate. The nice thing about not filling the bags up all the way for wakeboarding is you could correct uneven loading/passenger weight on the fly.